Dismissed

Ratha Krishnan v. The District Revenue Officer

Madras HC23 Sept 2025WP(MD)/26275/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Where UDR revenue records are challenged after a lapse of about 40 years and unresolved title/extent disputes exist between relations over the land, revenue authorities may decline to alter records and direct parties to the civil court, consistent with Government circular guidance that civil courts are competent to decide title. The court found no infirmity in the District Revenue Officer's order refusing rectification and patta, dismissed the writ petition without costs, and permitted the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional civil court.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ratha Krishnan Vs The District Revenue Officer — Property and Title | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED: 23.09.2025

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶5

W.P.(MD)No.26275 of 2025 and

¶6

W.M.P(MD)No.20440 of 2025

Ratha Krishnan

...Petitioner

The District Revenue Officer, Tenkasi District, Tenkasi.

¶11

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sankarankovil, Tenkasi District,

¶12

The Tahsildar, Thiruvengadam Taluk Office, Thiruvengadam, Tenkasi District.

¶13

4.J.Rama Moorthi ...Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records in relating to the impugned order of the 1^st respondent made in Ni.Mu.No.K2/722/2022 dated 04.08.2025 and to quash the same and consequently, to direct the 1^st respondent to rectify the revenue records and to issue patta in favor of the petitioner in respect of the land in survey No.436, to an extent of 1.80 Acres, situating in Kalingapatti Village, Thiruvengdam Taluk, Tenkasi District within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶15

1/7

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.M.S.Jeyakarthik For Respondents : Mr.K.R.Badurus Zaman Government Advocate for R1 to R3

¶18

ORDER

¶19

An order of the District Revenue Officer is assailed herein.

¶20

2.The petitioner asserts that the land in S.No.436 was recorded in the settlement “A” Register in the name of the petitioner's grandmother Iyammal. Thereafter, during the UDR period, it is stated that the said land was subdivided into S.Nos.436/1, 436/2 and 436/3. According to the petitioner, the extent was erroneously recorded as 0.58.5 hectares as regards S.No.436/1 and 0.83.0 hectares as far as S.No.436/3 is concerned. As regards S.No.436/2 it is stated that it was recorded jointly in the names of the petitioner's father Kandasamy Nayakar, and the petitioner's uncle, Jayaram Naickar. Learned counsel submits that the Village Administrative Officer and Tahsildar, in their reports agreed that it is an UDR error. In spite of such reports, learned counsel contends that the District Revenue Officer erroneously directed the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional civil court.

¶21

3.Learned Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. By referring to the impugned order, he contends that the petitioner had approached the District revenue Officer about 40 years after the entries were made in the UDR records. He also points out that the Petitioner stepped into the

¶22

2/7

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

shoes of his father and cannot raise objections that his father did not raise over this long period of time.

¶25

4.The impugned order records the details of the Pattadhars as per the resettlement “A” Register and as per UDR “A” Register. As discussed above, in the UDR record, the Pattadhar's name is reflected as the petitioner's father in respect of S.No.436/1 of an extent of 58.5 ares. The said record also enters the name of the petitioner's uncle, Jayaram Naickar, in respect of S.No.436/3. The extent is recorded as 83 ares. Ever since the UDR records were prepared, the petitioner's father, Kandasamy Naickar, has not raised any objections. After the lapse of about 40 years, the petitioner seeks restoration of the records as per the settlement “A” Register.

¶26

5.While considering such request, in relevant part, it was recorded as

¶27

under:-

¶28

“NkYk; fuptyk;te;jey;Y}u; rhu;gjptf Mtz vz; 1291 / 1957 ehs; 07.09.1957-d;gb fe;jrhkp ehaf;fu;(1). n[auhk; ehaf;fu;(2) ma;ak;khs;(3) MfpNahu; ghfg;gpuptpid nra;Js;sdu;. mjd; gpd;G Mtz vz; 293 / 1976 ehs; 03.04.1976-d;gb fe;jrhkp ehaf;fu;(1) n[auhk; ehaf;fu; (2) MfpNahu; Nkw;gb nrhj;jpid kPz;Lk; ghfg;gpuptpid nra;Js;sdu;. 1976-k; Mz;L ghfg;gpuptpid nra;J nfhz;l kDjhuupd; je;ij fe;jrhkp ehaf;fu; kw;Wk; mtupd; rNfhjuu; n[auhk; ehaf;fu; MfpNahu; epy cilik Nkk;ghl;Lj;jpl;l jpUj;jk; Nfhup epy cilik Nkk;ghl;Lj;jpl;l mYtyuplNkh. mjd;gpd; rk;ke;jg;gl;l mYtyu;fsplk; kD vJk; jhf;fy; nra;Js;sjhf kDjhuu; jug;gpy; Mtzq;fs; VJk; jhf;fy; nra;ag;gltpy;iy. jw;NghJ epy cilik Nkk;ghl;Lj;jpl;lk; eilngw;W Rkhu; 40 Mz;Lfs; fope;j gpd;G jw;NghJ kDjhuu; jdJ je;ijapd; ghfg;gpuptpid Mtzj;jpd;gb , jdf;F Fiwthf epyk; cs;sJ vd;Wk; A+.b.Mu; gl;lhit uj;J nra;J Gy

¶29

3/7

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

vz; 436-d;gb Vf;fu; 3 nrz;l; 60 y; jyh 1 Vf;fu; 80 nrz;l; vd;w mstpy; jq;fs; ngaUf;F gl;lh NfhupAk; kDr; nra;Js;shu;. ,J Vw;Gilajy;y.

¶32

NkYk; njd;fhrp epy msit cjtp ,af;Feu; mwpf;ifapy; kDjhuu; Fwpg;gpLk; ,lk; mtu;fsJ mDgtj;jpy; ,y;iy vdTk; , mtu; mDNghfj;jpy; ,y;yhj 15 nrz;l; G+kpapy; mDgtj;jpid Vw;gLj;jp kD nra;J gl;lh khWjy; nra;J nfhs;syhk; vd njuptpj;Js;shu;. ,jpypUe;J kDjhuUf;F 15 nrz;l; mDgtk; ,y;iy vd;gJ njupa tUfpwJ. NkYk; ghfg;gpuptpid vd;gJ mtu;fSf;Fs;Ns Vw;gLtjhFk;. mjd; mbg;gilapy; mtu;fs; mDgtk; Vw;gLj;jpf;nfhz;bUf;f Ntz;Lk;. mt;thW ,y;yhky; 45 Mz;Lfs; fope;j epiyapy; mDgtk; ,y;yhj epiyapy; ghfg;gpuptpid gj;jpuk;gb muR Mtzj;jpid khw;wp jUkhW Nfl;gJ Vw;Gilajd;W.

¶33

,e;Neu;tpy; epy epu;thf Mizau; mtu;fspd; Rw;wwpf;if Ref/No/K2/27160/2008 -13.03.2018

¶34

b. Whenever, unsolved disputes arise between the parties, the revenue authorities should bear in mind that only civil courts are competent to decide the title.

¶35

c. If any appeal or revision is filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer or District Revenue Officer respectively, the authority concerned should ensure that there is no civil suit pending over the disputed land.

¶36

d. if any interested/contesting party has brought to the notice of the concerned authority about the pending suits over the disputed land with the objection supported by a declaration that a civil suit has been filed and is accompanied by an authenticated copy of the plaint, the concerned authority should not pass any orders. Instead, the parties concerned should be directed to seek remedy in the pending suits and approach the revenue authorities on the basis of decree and judgment of the civil court vd njuptpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ.

¶37

Nkw;fhZk; epy epu;thf Mizau; mtu;fspd; Rw;wwpf;ifapd;gb , epy clikg; gl;lh Nkk;ghl;Lj; jpl;l gjpT jtWfs; jpUj;jk; NfhUk; ,dq;fspy; ePz;l fhykhf

¶38

4/7

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

epy cupik njhlu;ghf jhth ,U jug;gpdupilNa ,Uf;Fk;gl;rj;jpy; ( Unsolved disputes arise between parties ) mjid jPu;f;Fk; nghUl;L jFjptha;e;j cupikapay; ePjpkd;wj;ij mZFkhW njuptpf;f Ntz;Lk;.

¶41

NkYk; kDjhuupd; Nfhupf;if cupik( Title ) njhlu;ghdjhfTk; , epyj;jpd; jw;Nghija mDgtk; ePz;l fhykhf vjpu; jug;gpduplk; ,Uf;fpd;w fhuzj;jpdhYk; ( unsolved disputes arise between parties) kDjhuupd; Nfhupf;ifapid epuhfupj;J cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ.

¶42

,e;j cj;jutpd; kPJ Ml;Nrgid VJkpUg;gpd; mry; cj;juT fpilf;fg;ngw;w 30 jpdq;fSf;Fs; cupa cupikapay; ePjpkd;wj;jpd; %yk; gupfhuk; Njbf; nfhs;s mwpTWj;jpAk; Mizaplg;gLfpwJ. ”

¶43

6.From the above extracts, it is clear that the District Revenue Officer

¶44

examined the records carefully and concluded that UDR records have been challenged after the lapse of more than 40 years. He has also recorded that there are disputes relating to the extent of land owned by the petitioner and his cousin, namely, the 4^th respondent. Consequently, the petitioner has been directed to approach the jurisdictional civil court. I find no infirmity in the said order. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed without any order as to costs by

¶45

leaving it to open to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional civil court. Consequently, connected writ miscellaneous petition is also closed.

¶46

23.09.2025

¶47

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No RJR

¶48

5/7

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶50

6/7

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶52

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

¶53

RJR

¶54

¶55

The District Revenue Officer, Tenkasi District, Tenkasi.

¶56

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sankarankovil, Tenkasi District,

¶57

The Tahsildar, Thiruvengadam Taluk Office, Thiruvengadam, Tenkasi District.

¶58

W.P.(MD)No.26275 of 2025

¶59

23.09.2025

¶60

7/7

¶61

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Ratha Krishnan v. The District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ratha Krishnan v. The District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.U.Krishnaraj Vs The District Revenue Officer cum

Saraswathi Vs The Additional Collector (Revenue)

M.Arumugasamy Vs The Tahsildar

Sakappan Vs The District Collector

P.Rajaram Vs Rural Development and PancaThe Director of Rural Developmenthayat Raj Department

R.Mayilsamy Vs The Tamilnadu Information Commission